Tuesday, June 30, 2015

THE WHITE HOUSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT ARE FIGHTING TO KEEP SECRET THE SUBSTANCE OF A HILLARY CLINTON-BARACK OBAMA PHONE CALL >>>> THAT CALL TOOK PLACE WHILE THE BENGHAZI ATTACKS WERE HAPPENING >>>> AND BEFORE TWO OF THE AMERICANS HAD BEEN KILLED IN THE SECOND WAVE OF BENGHAZI ATTACKSSECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON IDENTIFIED AS PROBABLE SOURCE OF THE “INTERNET VIDEO” COVER STORY — ON THE NIGHT OF 9/11/12, THE WHITE HOUSE DECIDED “WE SHOULD LET [THE] STATE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT [ABOUT THE ANTI-ISLAMIC VIDEO] BE OUR COMMENT FOR THE NIGHT...”

"It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people -- they shine a spotlight on the administration's incompetence and indifference. All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source the Internet video lie." – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton

According to a report by Catherine Herridge of Fox News, “New documents released by a federal court show President Obama called then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the night of the 2012 Benghazi attack -- but the contents are being withheld by the State Department.... It had previously been disclosed that Clinton and Obama spoke the night of the terror attacks. But the documents offer additional information about the timing of the call -- after the initial attack on the U.S. consulate, but before the second wave where mortars hit the nearby CIA annex and killed former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.... The contents of the call, however, are being withheld, not because the information is classified but because the administration claims they represent internal deliberations about the 2012 terror assault....” (See “Benghazi night call between Clinton and Obama withheld, documents show” by Catherine Herridge 6/29/15, Fox News [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/benghazi-night-call-between-clinton-and-obama-withheld-documents-show/]).

The Fox report went on to say that the contents of the Obama-Clinton phonecall were only shared with Obama's and Clinton's closest aides; and that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes sent an email about the Obama-Clinton phone call to State Department officials Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, and National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan.

STATE DEPARTMENT'S "INTERNET VIDEO" NARRATIVE APPROVED AS COVER STORY WHILE BENGHAZI ATTACKS WERE STILL IN PROGRESS

According to Fox News’ Catherine Heeridge: “The [Ben Rhodes] email was released as part of an ongoing lawsuit by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.... The email on the Obama-Clinton phone call bears the subject line, ‘Call.’ The text of the email says, ‘Readout of President's Call to Secretary Clinton,’ but the rest of the details are fully redacted. The State Department cited the so-called ‘B5' exception for internal deliberations.... The emails also show that Rhodes, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and before the attack was over, endorsed a statement from Clinton that cited an anti-Islam Internet video.... That statement noted some tried to justify the assault ‘as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.’ Rhodes [a high-level White House Operative] told Clinton's aides that ‘we should let State Department statement be our comment for the night.’... The following day, Sept. 12, Meehan sent an email to State and NSC officials saying Rhodes would host a conference call that morning ‘to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day.’...”

Fox News gives complete report of Trump’s media problems

According to a report coming out of Fox News, “Donald Trump labeled NBC as ‘weak and foolish’ after they ended their business relationship with the GOP hopeful over his comments about immigrants from Mexico, and said he'd see the Peacock network in court....” The article went on to quote Mr. Trump as follows: “If NBC is so weak and so foolish to not understand the serious illegal immigration problem in the United States, coupled with the horrendous and unfair trade deals we are making with Mexico, then their contract violating closure of Miss Universe/Miss USA will be determined in court.... Furthermore, they will stand behind lying Brian Williams, but won’t stand behind people that tell it like it is, as unpleasant as that may be.” Trump made those remarks in a statement during an interview to FOXNews.com (See “Donald Trump calls NBC 'weak and foolish' after they sever ties with GOP hopeful” by Staff Writer, 6/29/15, Fox411/ FoxNews.com [http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/06/29/nbc-cuts-ties-with-donald-trump/]).

FOX REPORT ABOUT NBC’S STAND AGAINST TRUMP

Here’s how the Fox story described the NBC side of its dispute with Trump: “NBC cut ties with Trump after he, in his announcement to run for president, described immigrants from Mexico as ‘bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.’... ‘At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values,’ the network said in a statement. ‘Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.’... The network added that it was done with Trump's pageants as well.... ‘To that end, the annual Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, which are part of a joint venture between NBC and Trump, will no longer air on NBC.’...”

NBC’s position vis a vis “Celebrity Apprentice” seemed a little more nuanced and complicated — “... NBC was co-owner with Trump of the pageants and is in business with him as host and producer of the popular show ‘The Celebrity Apprentice.’... The network stated that their reality show with him was kaput, too.... ‘In addition, as Mr. Trump has already indicated, he will not be participating in “The Celebrity Apprentice” on NBC. “Celebrity Apprentice” is licensed from Mark Burnett's United Artists Media Group and that relationship will continue.’...”

PRIOR UNIVISION ACTIONS MENTIONED BY FOX

The Fox report also mentioned that Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language network, said last week that it wouldn't air the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants, and would cut all future business ties with Mr. Trump.

At the time of the Univision statement, NBC commented only by saying the company doesn't "agree with his positions on a number of issues including his recent comments on immigration." A sister network of NBC is Telemundo, another major Spanish-language TV outlet, which previously had aired Miss Universe pageants before Univision won the contract.

— Independent-socialist Bernie Sanders’ early strong showing head-to-head against Hillary generated several news stories on print media and on TV— ALSO a major news outlet declared that Hillary Clinton’s Missing Benghazi E-Mails is a story with legs

“...SO MANY HEADLINES FOR HILLARY CLINTON’S TOP CHALLENGER...” — GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS ON ABC’S “THIS WEEK...” PROGRAM

According to an ABC report on it’s own “This Week with George Stephanopoulos" program, reporter Benjamin Bell noted the following: “Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent who has risen quickly in the polls for the 2016 Democratic nomination, predicted with confidence Sunday that he’ll secure the nomination and be elected president next year.... ‘We are going to win New Hampshire. We’re going to win Iowa, and I think we’re going to win the Democratic nomination, and I think we’re going to win the presidency,’ Sanders told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on ‘This Week.’... Sanders said his economic message targeting the middle class would help him secure the nomination.... The American people are sick and tired of seeing the disappearance of the great middle class of this country,” he said. ‘They're sick and tired of working longer hours for low wages while at the same time 99 percent of all new income generated is going to the top one percent.’...” (See “Sen. Bernie Sanders Predicts He'll Win White House” by Benjamin Bell, 6/28/15, ABC News [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-bernie-sanders-predicts-hell-win-white-house/story?id=32083075]).

SANDERS READY TO DEBATE HILLARY ABOUT GAY RIGHTS, RACIAL MATTERS AND HILLARY’S HEALTH AND FITNESS COMPARED TO HIS

Perhaps even more threatening to Hillary Clinton and any hope that she might have of being the Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2016, Bernie Sanders showed that he could stand up to tough questions on certain issues. Sanders seemed ready to debate Stephanopoulos or Hillary or anybody else when it comes to his record on the following: gay rights; civil rights for blacks and Hispanics; and perhaps most significantly, his health and fitness to run for president – and do the job – especially when compared to Hillary Clinton’s.

Also very interesting was a quick back and forth between George Stephanopoulos and Christina Vanden Huevel on another segment later in the program – hint, it was about Bernie Senders and whether he could win.....

CNN COMES DOWN HARD ON HILLARY’S MISSING E-MAILS

According to a report appearing in Real Clear Politics, CNN’s John King is quoted as having said, “Democrats may roll their eyes, go ahead, but the Hillary Clinton private emails controversy now has new legs....” And that — “The Democratic front-runner has only herself to blame. After the House Select Benghazi Committee released some new emails this past week, the Obama State Dept. was forced to admit it was not in possession of some Clinton emails that clearly discuss Department business....” (See “CNN's John King: Clinton Email Scandal Has New Legs, ‘Hillary Has Only Herself To Blame’ ” posted 6/28/15 [with video link], Real Clear Politics/Video [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/28/john_king_email_scandal_has_new_legs_hillary_has_only_herself_to_blame.html]).

The video accompanying the RCP report showed CNN’s John King flanked by a graphic showing a notebook and the words, “CNN John’s Notebook ‘hillary’s messy emails’ ” as the CNN news host went on to say this: “Now, will some Republicans blow this out of proportion or wander into the realm of conspiracy theory? – Perhaps, even probably, but as Democrats accuse them of being partisan or reckless, remember this: This would not be an issue if Clinton hadn't erased her email server and if she followed the wishes of her boss, Obama about how to handle cabinet-level emails....”

AND YES, THIS IS A BIGGER STORY THAN THE PRO-HILLARY DEMOCRATS WANT IT TO BE

Before anybody dismisses my post as trying to make this a bigger deal that anybody else might — the reason I posted this now was because of my late morning 6/29/15 Goodle search for “Hillary Clinton News.” And guess what came up as one of the lead stories on Google — THIS: “CNN's John King: Clinton Email Scandal Has New Legs, "Hillary Has Only Herself To Blame"
RealClearPolitics? - 19 hours ago” (See Google Search: “Hillary” “Clinton” “News” [https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+News&oq=Hillary+Clinton+News&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j69i60.7862j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8]).

Friday, June 26, 2015

Barbara Burke likes to play the Ordinary Censor when it suits her — OR — like now, if she has no real control over things and she has to pretend

Another attempted social media blockade of the real Galewyn Massey

At approximately 5:15 PM EDT I attempted to access the impersonator Twitter site operated by HRC Super Volunteer, Barbara Burke — “Galewyn For Hillary @Gale4Hillary.” I immediately was confronted by this message: “You are blocked from following @Gale4Hillary and viewing @Gale4Hillary's Tweets”....

For weeks I had seen what was being Tweeted by the HRC SuperVolunteers under the false flag of “Galewyn For Hillary @Gale4Hillary”; and then I put up countering Tweets. Now, Ms. Burke has made that nearly impossible.

This seemed very odd to me, because Barbara Burke had always been beating her gums and flapping her lips about “free speech” and “open debate.” However, so very much like her idol Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara Burke is a fraud and a hypocrite; and whatever she says about virtue and virtuousness is merely convenient pretense.

No doubt, today’s Supreme Court decision, decreeing a national right to marriage between homosexuals in some way a catalyzed Ms. Burke’s harsh overreaction.

You see Ms. Burke, in one of what would become several tweets favoring the High Court’s decision, RT-ed a picture of a dispirited Justice Antonin Scalia, a product of Queens with strong ties to Brooklyn, as follows:

I was both bothered and perplexed by Burke’s barb at the venerable Associate Justice, so I did this reply tweet:

“Galewyn Massey @chtjasalo
@Gale4Hillary @TheHRCSuperVols
LOL at you Barbara – Chiding Scalia, after you've outed so many closet-cases – including family members ”

Somehow that must have set Barbara off her stride. You see this particular cyber-stalker likes to peer into the lives of others and do leering Tweets about them, but she doesn’t like anything resembling that for herself — all the time, while she proclaims, “... my life is an open book....”

NY TIMES SAYS: HILLARY CLINTON HAS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE DELETED WORK-RELATED E-MAILS FROM HER PRIVATE ACCOUNT

The NY Times article by Michael S. Schmidt has a tame-sounding headline: “State Dept. Gets Libya Emails That Hillary Clinton Didn’t Hand Over” — IT AIN'T TAME, AND BOY, IT IS PITHY

The most important take-aways are: 1) that the NY Times made John Boehner look like he was dragging his feet not going after >>> Bill and Hillary Clinton’s SERVER at their home in Chappaqua <<< — AND — 2) GOP Presidential Candidate, Senator Lindsay Graham, wants to make Clinton’s missing State Department E-Mails part of his campaign for president; and that seems OK with the NY Times

The biggest news of the day on the Hillary Clinton-Benghazi front is that the New York Times is bashing Hillary Clinton again over her handling of Emails while she was Secretary of State. It’s no accident that the NY Times by-line on all of this again goes to Mike Schmidt — he’s the guy who broke the whole Hillary private E-Mail story in the first place. So in its own Times-ish way of doing things, the NY Times is DOUBLING-DOWN AGAINST HILLARY ON EMAILS — and the takeaway is this — FIRST, HILLARY YOU HAVE TO TURN OVER THE SERVER TO CONGRESS — AND SECOND, THIS IS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE TO BE RAISED BY YOUR OPPONENTS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.......

According to the article in today’s New York Times by Michael S. Schmidt, “The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over, raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from the private account she used exclusively while in office....” (See “: “State Dept. Gets Libya Emails That Hillary Clinton Didn’t Hand Over” by Michael S. Schmidt, 6-25-15 [Print editions 6-26-15] NY Times/ Politics [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/state-dept-gets-libya-emails-that-clinton-didnt-hand-over.html?_r=0]).

A very important part of the Times-Schmidt article says, “.... Republicans said that the State Department’s statement was likely to increase pressure on the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, to subpoena the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home that housed the account...."

THE BLUMENTHAL E-MAILS — STATE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMS IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD NINE (9) ARE MISSING AND SIX (6) OTHERS ARE INCOMPLETE

Schmidt points out that ".... Mrs. Clinton has said that she gave the State Department about 50,000 pages of emails that she deemed to be related to her work as secretary of state and deleted roughly the same number. She said the messages she deleted were personal, relating to topics like yoga, family vacations and her mother’s funeral.... ” However, he also notes that “[Hillery Clinton’s] longtime confidant and adviser Sidney Blumenthal, responding two weeks ago to a subpoena from the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, gave it dozens of emails he had exchanged with Mrs. Clinton when she was in office. Mr. Blumenthal did not work at the State Department at the time, but he routinely provided her with intelligence memos about Libya, some with dubious information, which Mrs. Clinton circulated to her deputies.... State Department officials then crosschecked the emails from Mr. Blumenthal with the ones Mrs. Clinton had handed over and discovered that she had not provided nine of them and portions of six others....”

Clearly, these missing E-mails about Benghazi, produced by Sidney Blumenthal pursuant to a congressional subpoena show it could be a lot more than the personal stuff described by Hillary Clinton in her now-infamous UN press conference. It clearly raises questions as to whether relevant Benghazi-related were intentionally deleted off the Clintons’ personal server by Mrs. Clinton and/or her personal operatives.

YES, VIRGINIA, THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS — THIS BENGHAZI E-MAIL STUFF IS POLITICAL — AND THAT’S PERFECTLY ALRIGHT

Here’s the kicker in the Times article by Michael Schmidt — “.... The disclosure [by the U.S. State Department] appeared to open the door for Republicans on Capitol Hill to get more deeply involved in the issue. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is running for president, said he planned to send a series of questions to the State Department about the missing emails and about why it allowed her to use the personal account.... Republicans said that the State Department’s statement was likely to increase pressure on the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, to subpoena the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home that housed the account.”

QUESTIONS GO BEYOND HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS

The final issue raised in the Schmidt-Times article is this: “... While the State Department acknowledged that it did not have several of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, it also told the Benghazi committee that it had not turned over other messages of hers. The department said that it had not done so because the contents of those messages fell outside the requests made by the committee.... 'The State Department is working diligently to review and publish the 55,000 pages of emails we received from former Secretary Clinton,' it said in a statement.... That statement is unlikely to satisfy the committee, which believes it has been clear in its requests. Members of the panel have contended that the State Department has withheld documents to protect Mrs. Clinton and grind the investigation to a halt....”

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

In spite of a looming opportunity in 46th AD for another Special Election win, many in the Brooklyn GOP seem ready to sit this one out

The 46th Assembly District is one of the few ADs in Brooklyn where the Republican Party might be able to be competitive when there is an “open” seat — especially, if the AD seat is up for grabs in a special election.

CRAIG EATON’S BIG DECISION

Last week the blog, “Kings County Politics,” posted an article by Lenore Fedow, in which she discussed the prospect of various political types in an expected special election “... to replace soon to be stepping down 46th District Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny....” (See “Scrum Is On In 46th District Assembly Race” by Lenore Fedow, June 18, 2015, Kings County Politics [http://www.kingscountypolitics.com/scrum-is-on-in-46th-district-assembly-race/]).

Here’s how Ms. Fedow described the bag of mixed nuts that might be up for such a run, “... [a]n Iraq War veteran and hero... [a] chief of staff [to an elected official] with a high-powered political operative boyfriend... [and a] young lawyer with smarts and more political juice than a Rastafarian diet restaurant...” — With this proviso, by Fedow, “ ... [a]nd that’s just the rumored frontrunners....”

Interestingly, an old wag friend of mine sent me the link to the Fedow post on the “King County Politics” blog with the notation “Eatons Big Decision?” [sic]; even more interesting, this guy is a long-time Bay Ridge Dem activist (No, not the most obvious one — or even the second most obvious — probably, no definitely, the third most obvious.......) And he thinks with the “perfect” candidate, the GOP can grab a NYS Assembly seat “... with the current environment in that district....”

When this “special” finally comes up, and it looks like it will be sometime soon, an Executive Committee of the Kings County Republican party led by Craig Eaton will have to decide whether it wants to run a Republican Candidate in the 46th Assembly District, and who that candidate might be. On the other hand, the GOP County Leader and his Executive Board can decide to pass the choice down to the AD level and have the State Committee Members for the 46th AD poll their County Committee to select a candidate.

The latter choice is unlikely, insofar as both 46th AD State Committee Members were mentioned as possible candidates for the NYS Assembly in the post by Lenore Fedow – Marcus Nussbaum and Lucretia Regina-Potter. Some in the Nussbaum and Regina-Potter camps as well as others on the Brooklyn GOP Executive Committee might view a decision by either or both Nussbaum and/or Regina-Potter as a conflict of interest, mitigating against their being directly involved in the selection process, other than as members of the much bigger and more diverse Executive Committee.

In addition, in a brief conversation with GOP Chairman Craig Eaton, he indicated to me that he intended to schedule a meeting of his Executive Committee as soon as the timetable for a special election is announced. He would go no further than to say that there is interest by some to run a strong GOP candidate for the seat.

THE POTENTIAL CROP OF GOP CANDIDATES IS BIGGER THAN THOSE MENTIONED BY THE KINGS COUNTY POLITICS ARTICLE

Other GOP candidates for a special election in the 46th A.D. could reasonably include one or more of the following: John Quaglione, Stamatis “Steve” Lilikakis, Tom McCarthy, and even “Hard Hat” Andy Sullivan. All have run within all, or significant parts of, the 46th Assembly District in the last few years — and all of them, as official Brooklyn GOP candidates for public office, have shown some ability to pull a vote against tough Democratic Party opposition — usually, by a well-established, long-time incumbent in the contested office. (btw, the “perfect” candidate described by my Democrat friend is none of the GOPers mentioned as possible candidates in this article, or Lenore Fedow’s for that matter.

A COUPLE OF REPUBLICAN WAGS WITH NO DEARTH OF OPINIONS ABOUT THE 46th AD RACE

I talked about this district with a couple of folks who have been in and around the Brooklyn GOP for quite some time. The most quotable item is this, “The Republican Party, especially in New York State, and most especially in Brooklyn, never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.... I am pretty sure that applies this time around, too.” When I described my Dem friend’s thoughts about a “perfect candidate” this particular wag said, “A real ‘perfect candidate’ will have to be able to pay for his (her) own race or do their own top drawer fund raising.” The wag explained that the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee (“RACC”) has very little money to spend on something like this, so it will have to be a self-funded deal. Since this person is a real nuts’n’bolts type, I took all of that to mean that if you came up with a so-called “perfect” candidate with a full funding source, a successful special election race in the 46th AD would be doable.

The other person was also somebody that had a GOP insiders outlook. He was much less sanguine about any effort in the 46th AD. The first observation was that the district is quite divided between the Golden and Eaton factions of the Brooklyn GOP. Furthermore, if the GOP candidate is not one out of the LaGuardia Club, that club will not lift a finger for any other candidate. The second point was that the Brooklyn GOP team, which was so successful in the special elections for Turner for Congress and Storobin for the State Senate has largely been dissipated, and very few of the participants in those past special elections would be inclined to go into a new “special” in the 46th AD.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Something funny happened on Hillary Clinton’s way to the forum of public opinion in her attempt to tar Donald Trump with the Charleston shootings — First, it fell flat as a pancake; next, people started recounting different stories about what had happened — Hmmm ?

Hillary’s failed attempt to achieve a “Sister Souljah Moment” at the expense of Donald Trump — was a blatant attempt to politicize the funereal moment of the nine murdered victims of the Charleston Emanuel A.M.E. Church — It is akin to what she did as Secretary of State over the flag-draped coffins of four dead Americans following the Benghazi fiasco in 2012

But all of that has received only passing attention in the main stream media — The question again arises — Why ?

Earlier today I mentioned in a comment thread to another post on this blog that Hillary Clinton, in an appearance on the KNPB “Ralston Live” program with Jon Ralston, said, “Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.... I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign [who] said some very inflammatory things....” (See my 6/19/15 comment “UPDATE: THE “ HASHTAG HILLARY CLASSIC [#HILLARYCLASSIC] ” EDITION” to my 6/16/15 post “DONALD TRUMP” below on this blog).

HILLARY CLINTON IS BEING PROTECTED BY THE MSM FROM HER VERY UN-PRESIDENTIAL MOMENT ON THE AIR WITH JON RALSTON

Those remarks about Mr. Trump by Mrs. Clinton received almost universal coverage. However up to this point, that coverage has been very muted and subdued. The reasons for that are not yet clear. However, I put it to you that — it isn’t too far-fetched to suggest these two points: first, the way in which Hillary Clinton attacked Donald Trump was a major political blunder; second the MSM is protecting Hillary by letting her hide in plain sight, like they have done so many times before. A perfect example of this is an article that appeared in Politico, which completely downplayed the despicable attack upon Mr. Trump by Hillary Clinton — here’s how Politico did it: first, the headline “Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump's racial rhetoric 'not acceptable' ”; then the lead paragraph, “Hillary Clinton took a swipe at Donald Trump on Thursday, saying — without mentioning the New York real estate tycoon by name — that his presidential launch speech was offensive to Mexicans and “emblematic” of the kind of rhetoric that cannot be tolerated in the wake of the tragic South Carolina shootings....” (See “Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump's racial rhetoric 'not acceptable' ” by Adam Lerner, 6/19/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-racist-speak-119210.html]). Clearly, the Politico author completely reversed the cause-and-effect implicit in Hillary Clinton’s remarks to protect her from what she obviously was trying to do.

Even when Adam Lerner recounted Mr. Trump’s complaint, he never addressed it in terms of what Hillary Clinton had said and implied about Mr. Trumps speech.

ABC NEWS HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT HILLARY CLINTON ONLY “SUGGESTED” THINGS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS REMARKS

ABC News took a completely different tack, “Hillary Clinton didn't call The Donald out by name, but she suggested in an interview Thursday that comments like ones the real estate tycoon-turned-Republican presidential candidate made during his recent announcement speech could "trigger" events like this week’s church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina....” (See “Hillary Clinton Suggests Donald Trump-Like Comments Can 'Trigger' Events Like Charleston” by Liz Kreutz & Rick Klein, 6/19/15, ABC News/ via GMA [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-suggests-donald-trump-comments-trigger-events/story?id=31884003]). Maybe, Hillary was being very subtle and too clever by half; knowing that if it all blew-up, she could get out of it by saying something like — "I never meant to say anything like that at all...."

Well, see for yourself. This is the context in which Hillary Clinton couched her remarks about her prospective Republican opponent, Mr. Trump: “We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, hatred, prejudice,” Clinton said of the Charleston shooting in the interview with Jon Ralston. She went on, saying, "Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.”

Even though the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, did not mention Donald Trump by name, Hillary Clinton did explicitly mention the remarks he had made in his announcement speech on Tuesday. Here’s what she said, “I think we have to speak out against it.... Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.”

Needless to say, Trump’s remarks had been made the day before a white gunman opened fire in a historically African-American church, killing nine black people; and Hillary did want that connection to be clear. So what did she do next, Clinton spoke about guns as a factor in the Charleston shootings — “The second thing is guns. Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns," she said. She couldn’t have been more explicit — the causes of the Charleston shootings were: first, the Trump speech; and second, it’s the guns.

Interestingly, in the main stream media, and even most of the rightist press, radio and cable-news, it was Hillary Clinton’s “second thing” – “it’s guns” that got the bigger coverage — much more than the Donald Trump stuff.

HILLARY CLINTON’S ATTACK ON DONALD TRUMP WAS A BLUNDER OF SUCH MONUMENTAL PROPORTION — IT SHOWS THAT SHE LACKS THE JUDGMENT AND TEMPERAMENT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Obviously, Hillary Clinton was attempting her version of her husband Bill’s very famous “Sister Souljah Moment.” — And Hillary was more than happy to try it out at the expense of a GOP presidential candidate, in this instance -- Donald Trump.

So far Hillary’s attempt to Sister Souljah her opponent Donald Trump has fallen into the “Epic Fail” category of political gamesmanship, because it was the wrong thing to do — and it was done at an especially wrong time.

So far the only pushback against Mrs. Clinton has come from Donald Trump himself, his spokesman Sam Nunberg, and various reports, mostly in the right-leaning media covering Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Numberg’s pushback.

BUT REALLY, right now, things could and should be much worse than that for Mrs. Clinton — what she did against the backdrop of the nine victims of what looks like lone-wolf domestic terrorism in Charleston, South Carolina was one of the most ill-timed and distasteful acts ever perpetrated by a presidential candidate. It is also something that plays into the emerging narrative that Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to achieve her selfish aims — and the general public sensibilities or the particular needs of grieving survivors of a tragedy useful to Hillary can be damned.

But, as I said above she is being protected by a large chunk of the main stream media, who are giving her a pass and letting her hide in plain sight on this one, just like so may before.

However, to use Hillary’s own words against her, “Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.... I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example...” against a Democrat candidate for president who has shown her unfitness for the office because she has demonstrated her lack of judgment and lack of temperament for the job with her rather thinly-veiled, vile and divisive attacks against Donald Trump at a terrible moment in our country, when standing together as a nation should have been paramount to her. — Of course that Democrat candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton, or as we know her — "Hillary just being Hillary."

And we don't want Hillary just being Hillary as our next president, do we ?

Several E-Mails that mentioned “Benghazi” were not turned over to the Benghazi Committee suggesting other missing Hillary Clinton E-mails, Correspondence and Documents BENGHAZI-related E-Mails were a focus of many questions directed at Sidney Blumenthal during his deposition on Tuesday — But source identifies the initiator of the private Libyan intelligence sent to Hillary Clinton as Ex- CIA hand Tyler Drumheller

POLITICO’S REPORT ABOUT SPECIFIC BENGHAZI E-MAILS NOT TURNED OVER BY HILLARY CLINTON OR U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

In a Wednesday night article posted by Politico, reporter Rachel Bade states that “The State Department or Hillary Clinton withheld emails from the House Benghazi committee that explicitly mentioned Democratic messaging following the 2012 terrorist attack, even though the panel had specifically asked for those kinds of correspondence to be turned over, POLITICO has learned.... The House Select Committee on Benghazi has in its possession an email exchange — dated just a few weeks after the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya was overrun and four Americans were killed — in which Sidney Blumenthal forwarded the Democratic presidential front-runner links to blog posts blasting the GOP for politicizing the attacks, a congressional source tells POLITICO....” ( See “Hillary Clinton emails mentioning Benghazi kept from panel: by Rachael Bade, 6/17/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/clinton-emails-mentioning-benghazi-kept-from-panel-119140.html]).

The Politico article goes on to say a congressional source indicated that some of the new E-Mails are clearly linked to Benghazi. That source says it would suggest other E–mails correspondence, and documents about Benghazi might also have fallen through the cracks.

According to the Politico article, on October 10th 2012, Sidney Blumenthal wrote, “Got all this done,” in an E-Mail to Hillary Clinton, that included this: “Complete refutation on Libya smear. Philippe can circulate these links. Sid...” The Politico reporter then explained, “[Mr.] Blumenthal was referring to four posts by Media Matters — a left-leaning, pro-Clinton group — that blasted the Benghazi responses from then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republicans, which he pasted in the body of the email. Blumenthal, a Clinton ally, is close to the group’s founder David Brock, another Clinton confidant — and has advised the organization, and others like it, on and off over the past few years.... ‘Philippe’ likely refers to Clinton’s top spokesperson, Philippe Reines....”

According to a text report on the ABC News blog, “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had access to the world’s top intelligence agencies and their resources, but at the most turbulent moment of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, she received a stream of intelligence on Libya and the Benghazi attack by a former CIA official working outside the government....” (See “Tyler Drumheller Was the Man Behind Hillary Clinton's Private Libya Intel, Sources Say”
by Benjamin Siegel & John Parkinson, 6/17/15, ABC News [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tyler-drumheller-man-hillary-clintons-private-libya-intel/story?id=31834468]).

The internet article authored by ABC’s Benjamin Siegel and John Parkinson also noted that “.... Sidney Blumenthal, a confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation, told the Select Committee on Benghazi Tuesday that the information he supplied the sitting Secretary of State came from a ‘respected former high-ranking CIA official.’...” And in addition, that “.... Sources close to the Benghazi investigation identified the official as Tyler Drumheller, a 25-year veteran of the CIA who retired from the agency in 2005 and has since worked in private consulting.... In 2011 and 2012, sources say Drumheller wrote two dozen memos regarding Libya and the Benghazi attack, mainly about the civil war.... [Hillary] Clinton often sent Drumheller’s memos to aides with instructions to print, or ‘distribute as you determine,’ according to emails released by the State Department. While some featured approving commentary ( ‘very interesting,’ she wrote on an August 2012 memo on Libya’s new president), others were met with more skepticism ( ‘This one strains credulity,’ she wrote of a March 2012 memo claiming France and the United Kingdom engineered Libya’s civil war.)...”

Statement by media organizations including the New York Daily News, Politico, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal — “We haven’t yet had a clear explanation about why the pool reporter for today’s events was denied access. But any attempt by the campaign to dictate who is in the pool is unacceptable....” Doubling down at an evening event, Hillary Clinton’s Campaign dug its heels in against the Press Pool’s reporter — and looks like it dug a deeper hole with the rest of the press

In a blown attempt to keep Hillary Clinton in a “bubble” and shielded from possible hostile questioning, the now obviously atrocious Clinton Presidential Campaign has again become a significant part of the story instead of the candidate or her message

Here’s how Politico reported on the most recent Hillary Clinton Campaign press flap: “The Hillary Clinton campaign denied access to the print pool reporter on Monday, reigniting reporters' longstanding concerns about the campaign's commitment to running an open and transparent campaign.... David Martosko, the U.S. political editor for London's Daily Mail, reported showing up at the campaign's breakfast stop in New Hampshire only to be told that he would not be allowed to pool the day's events. Pool reporters are responsible for sending reports from the trail to the rest of the press corps.... ‘Your pooler showed up at the Puritan Backroom in Manchester on a rainy New Hampshire morning at 7:45 and was greeted in the parking lot by Meredith Thatcher, a press staffer with the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Thatcher told your pooler that he wasn’t the approved print pool reporter for today’s pooled events,’ Martosko reported in his first pool report. (Note: Thatcher is actually a press staffer for "Hillary for New Hampshire," not the state's Democratic Party.)... ‘Asked to call her boss, Harrell Kirstein, she did so and then reported: “So I'm afraid it's a no. You're not on the list.” She said [campaign press secretary] Nick Merrill should be phoned with questions,’ Martosko continued. ‘Asked if the print pooler was being prohibited from getting on either of the pool vans, Thatcher replied: “I'm afraid that's right.” Asked why, she responded: “All I know is what Harrell has told me. I got an email saying the print pooler would be changed for today. Sorry.”... ’ Denied a ride in the pool van, Martosko told Thatcher that he would drive to the first campaign stop in Rochester on his own, ‘in the hope that things would be sorted out during the 75-minute drive.’..." (See “Clinton campaign denies access to pool reporter” by Dylan Byers, 6/15/15, Politico/ Dylan Byers On Media
[http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/clinton-campaign-denies-access-to-pool-reporter-208839.html]). The rest of Politico’s media column by Mr. Byers indicated that the problem was not resolved vis a vis Mr. Martosko, yesterday’s pool reporter; and it dealt with some lengthy and various complicated explanations and excuses by the Hillary Clinton Campaign “Traveling Press Secretary,” Nick Merrill.

BOSTON PAPERS JUMP ON CLINTON CAMPAIGN FOR EVENTS IN THEIR BACK YARD

THE BOSTON GLOBE COVERAGE

According to a report by Annie Linskey in the Boston Globe, “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign Monday banned a representative from the national print pool from attending any of her events in New Hampshire, a development that will make coverage for her trip to New Hampshire spotty for some of the country’s largest print outlets....”
(See “Clinton campaign bans national pool reporter from N.H. events” by Annie Linskey & Globe Staff, 6/15/15, Boston Globe [https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/06/15/hillary-clinton-campaign-barred-national-pool-reporter-from-new-hampshire-events/EgANuZJ7EnNAjZnKiKxcJO/story.html]).

Annie Linskey’s article goes on to state that, “.... ‘We need to rethink it all, maybe for a day,’ Merrill told David Martosko, a reporter for the Daily Mail, according to the reporter’s account of the conversation sent to other outlets in the national pool. ‘And just cool things off until we can have a discussion.’... The flap is the latest flashpoint between the Clinton campaign and the political press corps....”

As a rather clear signal that this is a big deal, the Boston Globe coverage included this: “.... On Monday evening, the news organizations representing Hillary Clinton’s traveling press pool released a statement on the matter, underscoring ‘the pool is open to any print organization willing to take part.’... ‘We would like to see all campaign events open to the public and the full press corps, but when that is not possible we have agreed to pool coverage,’ said the 14 news organizations. ‘We haven’t yet had a clear explanation about why the pool reporter for today’s events was denied access. But any attempt by the campaign to dictate who is in the pool is unacceptable.’...”

THE BOSTON HERALD COVERAGE

Meanwhile, another Boston newspaper weighed in with this on its blog: “All 14 news organizations that comprise Hillary Clinton’s traveling press pool are protesting the campaign’s decision to ban a reporter from two out of three public events today in New Hampshire.... ‘We would like to see all campaign events open to the public and the full press corps, but when that is not possible we have agreed to pool coverage,’ reads a statement by media organizations including the New York Daily News, Politico, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal. ‘We haven’t yet had a clear explanation about why the pool reporter for today’s events was denied access. But any attempt by the campaign to dictate who is in the pool is unacceptable.’... Clinton’s already strained relationship with the media worsened today after David Martosko of the Daily Mail -- the designated pool reporter for the day -- was twice denied access to cover Clinton’s campaign events....” (See “Press protests Clinton campaign ban” by Chris Cassidy, 6/15/15, Boston Herald/ Herald Bulldog First on the Street [http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2015/06/press_protests_clinton_campaign_ban]).

Chris Cassidy’s article for the Herald also noted, “Because of the size of the media pack that covers Clinton, the campaign restricts some small-scale events as “pool only,” where one or two reporters are designated to cover and then dispatch reports to all other media.... It's the only 2016 presidential campaign to use such a system....”

The remainder of the Boston Herald’s coverage largely tracked the stories recounted by the othe media outlets cited above in this post, except for the following bit.

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DOUBLES DOWN AGAINST POOL REPORTER AT EVENING EVENT IN MANCHESTER, N.H.

The Boston Herald report also contained this late item about an evening confrontation between Hillary Clinton’s Campaign and the Daily Telegraph’s David Martosko: “You need to leave,” a campaign aide told Martosko tonight when he tried to cover a Clinton speech at a dinner hosted by Manchester Democrats, according to the pool report Martosko sent out.

Monday, June 15, 2015

State Senator Martin Golden’s hand-picked selection to be the Brooklyn Republican Commissioner on the NYC Board of Elections, Simon Shamoun, missed a vote to require openly posting job openings at the BoardWill the resurfacing [or is that “Continued Submergence”] of Simon Shamoun, as a Commissioner at the BOE, re-open old wounds

******

Mr. Shamoun, a former GOP district leader in the 46th A.D. and a long-time Golden hand has been a center of controversy at the Board of Elections since his back-room-deal appointment, arranged by Marty Golden, few years ago — Since that time, the Kings County Republican Party and its chairman, Craig Eaton, has called for Shamoun’s ouster and the selection of a replacement by normal procedures

******

ACCORDING TO THE NEWS: “PATRONAGE WON” IN BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS' VOTE

The News editorial concluded with this: “Once, there were zero votes for openness on the 10-person board. Three is half way to turning the agency from a backwater to something better.”

WHAT WAS SIMON SHAMOUN DOING THAT HE COULDN’T PERFORM HIS DUTIES AT THE BOE ?

It remains a mystery what Mr. Shamoun found so important to do that he missed so important a vote of the commissioners at the NYC Board of Elections.

It could have been something as simple as instructions from State Senator Golden to miss the vote. You see, Golden wants to continue running the Brooklyn GOP piece of the BOE patronage mill as his personal fiefdom and patronage cookie jar.

SHAMOUN’S APPOINTMENT TO THE BOE WAS ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL — IT CONTINUES TO BE SO — AND IT REMAINS THE BIGGEST WEDGE BETWEEN GOLDEN AND EATON

Simon Shamoun has been under a cloud of suspicion from day one of his time at the Board of Elections. Remember the report on this blog that started like this: “Friday, February 8, 2013 --
This couldn’t have happened at a worse time for Brooklyn Republican Chairman Craig Eaton
GOP Council Members from other counties to select Brooklyn’s Election Commissioner.... According to Celeste Katz in her Daily News/Daily Politics blog/column: “GOP Councilmen seize opportunity to appoint election commissioners in Queens, Brooklyn, overruling county party leadership — With the shrewd power play, the three Republican representatives on the City Council will now have some influence on who the city's Board of Elections can hire and fire.” (See: Celeste Katz' post/article of the same name, 2/7/13, Daily News/Daily Politics [http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gop-councilmen-election-power-play-party-leadership-article-1.1258511#ixzz2KK63UWnL])....” Shamoun became a NYC Elections Commissioner as a result of that “...shrewd power play...” ( See also “Upheaval at city Board of Elections
by Chris Bragg, 2/7/13 [ Updated 2/11/13], Crain’s Business Insider [http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130207/BLOGS04/302079996/upheaval-at-city-board-of-elections]).

That wasn’t the end of Shamoun’s controversial tenure at the Board, though. It was only a couple of years ago that Marty Golden’s Commissioner at the BOE, Simon Shamoun, was up to his neck in a mini-scandal about the shredding of petitions at the Brooklyn Board that belonged to a slate that was supporting Brooklyn GOP Chairman Craig Eaton, and opposed to the slate backing State Senator Golden ( See e.g., “Brooklyn Republican Chief: Why Did Board Of Elections Shred My Supporters' Petitions?” by Celeste Katz, 7/25/13, NY Daily News/ Daily Politics [http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/brooklyn-republican-chief-board-elections-shred-supporters-petitions-blog-entry-1.1695640]).

REPEATED CALLS FOR SHAMOUN TO STEP DOWN

Ever since Mr. Shamoun’s back-room appointment to the Board of Elections early in 2013, the Kings County Republican party and its chairman, Craig Eaton, has called for Shamoun’s removal from the Board as the Brooklyn GOP Commissioner and the selection of a replacement by normal procedures involving the properly elected Republican Commitee for Brooklyn.

To date, all of State Senator Marty Golden’s overtures* to County Chairman Eaton have been rebuffed — with a proviso that any discussions might be acceptable if Simon Shamoun were no longer at the Board of Elections.
____________

* A person who sat-in at a recent meeting that I attended pointed-out that the "overtures" were not personally from Marty Golden or any of his inner circle, but were from "mutual friends".... I'm okay with that distinction.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

CIA Director George Tenant says that Bill Clinton’s Administration bankrupted CIA and made it impossible to adequately track al Queda leading up to 9/11/2001BLOCK-BUSTER ON EVE OF HILLARY CLINTON’S RE-INTRODUCTION TO AMERICA — SHOWS THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE A SERIES OF 9/11s PROBLEMS TO ANSWER FOR — SOME FROM 2012 AND SOME FROM 2001Disclosure of CIA Director’s 2005 Memo Blaming Clinton Administration Failures for 9/11 Attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 means that: — Old news is bad news for restart of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign

According to a Friday report in the Washington Times, “The Clinton administration had bankrupted the intelligence community and refused to let the CIA prioritize anti-terrorism over other major priorities in the late 1990s, leaving the agency stretched too thin in the days ahead of the 2001 terrorist attacks, former Director George J. Tenet said in a 2005 document declassified Friday....” (See “CIA releases memo showing agency blamed Bill Clinton for bankrupting war on terror ahead of 9/11” by Stephen Dinan, 6/12/15, The Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/12/clinton-admin-bankrupted-cia-ahead-911-ex-director/#ixzz3ctfdZJpN]).

Mr. Dinan’s report went on to note that “... Mr. Tenet, who was head of the agency at the time of the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks and has taken severe criticism for not anticipating and heading them off, said in the document that he took the threat of Osama bin Laden very seriously, and put major effort into trying to penetrate al Qaeda, beginning as far back as 1998....”

In one noteworthy revelation, in 2005 Mr. Tenet said that even the limited CIA efforts late in the Clinton Administration had warded-off an earlier “major attack,” which had been planned by al Qaeda for some time in 1999 or 2000. The Tenant document gave no further details.

According to another report on the 2005 Tenet memo, “... Tenet also painstakingly details the number of times he asked for more money for counterterrorism – and the nine occasions he said he sent memos to senior officials in both the executive branch and Congress warning of terrorist plots....” ( See “Ex-CIA Chief's 2005 Memo: Clinton Admin. Bankrupted Agency Before 9/11"
by Kathy Burke, 6/12/15, Newsmax [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cia-chief-george-tenet-memo/2015/06/12/id/650335/0]).

And Tenet himself is quoted as having written this, by both of the sources cited herein: “... Even though senior policy makers were intimately familiar with the threat posed by terrorism, particularly those in the previous [Clinton] administration who had responded to major attacks, they never provided us the luxury of either downgrading other high priority requirements we were expected to perform against, or the resource base to build counterterrorism programs with the consistency that we needed before September 11....”

BUT WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM FOR HILLARY CLINTON AND HER 2016 RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY ?

Anybody that asks such a question is either completely silly, extremely naive, or such a cynical Hillary supporter that they should be laughed at directly into their faces — with a full throated up-from-your-diaphragm — “Aha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ho-ho-ho-hee-hee-hee — [gasping] That's a good one ! ! !”

However, a simple explanation can been gleaned from a report about Hillary’s Roosevelt Island re-roll-out speech that appears in the New York Times. According to Amy Chozick’s report, “.... In a campaign in which Republicans have emphasized the growing threat of Islamic terrorism and an unstable Middle East, Mrs. Clinton hardly mentioned foreign policy. She did speak of her experience as a senator from New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.... ‘As your president, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe....’ [Hillary Clinton] said, weaving the skyline and a view of the newly built One World Trade Center into her remarks....”

JUST REMEMBER THIS ABOUT HILLARY

Based on Hillary’s experience as Secretary of State during the Benghazi attacks of 9/11/2012; and Hillary’s husband’s experience, as described by George Tenant, in connection to the 9/11/2001 attacks — over all, from well prior to 9/11/2001 through the events prior to, during and/or after 9/11/2012 — Hillary’s experiences with protecting Americans just isn’t very good, at all.

In fact, her most notable quote on the subject was made ON THE RECORD, in the Congressional Record —and it is this: “... What difference does it make, four dead Americans....”

Thursday, June 11, 2015

>>>> IN CASE YOU MISSED IT <<<< In a tweet earlier today Hillary Clinton personally congratulated a crew of the HRC Super Volunteers for their 200+ Twitter Followers on an account that impersonates and knocks-off the Galewyn Massey brand — Then, for some reason, that Tweet from Hillary just disappeared [like a few other non-Hillary Tweets on that account lately]A real case of a cloud with a silver lining — And making lemonade from somebody else's sour grapes

This morning I got a Twitter “Notification” — low and behold what did I find once I got onto Twitter? THIS:

At first, I was a little taken aback.... Hillary Clinton patting some disgruntled harpies on their heads for a petty guerrilla Twitter operation (motivated because they got banned from this blog) ?

Then I realized HILLARY DOESN’T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THAT. She just sees that some of her so-called supporters have a 200+ follower Twitter account apparently for her benefit.

What Hillary Clinton doesn’t realize is that this >>> rogue operation inside a rogue operation<<< is being run by a real way-out-there bark-at-the-moon-mad kook. As such, it would seem that this is a loose cannon, completely out of control of the Hillary Clinton Campaign; and it offers a wide-open trap-door into that campaign [whose full potential hasn’t been utilized yet].

In any case, this morning's Hillary tweet to the “GalewynForHillary @Gale4Hillary” folks is indirect recognition for those of us here at “Galewyn Massey... Brooklyn GOP Fountainhead”; and minimally it reached some 200+ [213 on the counter that I last saw] followers.

BTW, in the middle of working on this post, the tweet above completely disappeared from the “GalewynForHillary @Gale4Hillary” site. BUT, I’m kinda new to Twitter — maybe that’s NORMAL — it sure seems like a normal event at the “GalewynForHillary @Gale4Hillary” Twitter site, where I’ve seen it happen to other problematic tweets before.

In a real Left-looking attack on Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Clinton Team, Salon, the internet magazine, has projected a major shit-storm across the planned route of former Secretary of State Clinton and Hillary Clinton Campaign “Champion” Lanny Davis — Politically and as a news story, it’s something that might well be described as a “... Perfect Storm” “Want to know why Clinton's State Dept. failed to help [a Latin American] elected leader? Follow the money and stench of Lanny Davis” — “Salon”Article highlights split between Obama’s White House and Hillary Clinton’s State Department over a military coup in Honduras — Show’s Clinton pattern of supporting oligarchs and elites in the Americas

With a significant rhetorical flourish to let “ Salon” readers know that all that follows is a BIG DEAL, an article by Matthew Pulver says that “.... [t]hough it’s less sexy than Benghazi, the crisis following a coup in Honduras in 2009 has Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints all over it, and her alleged cooperation with oligarchic elites during the affair does much to expose Clinton’s newfound, campaign-season progressive rhetoric as hollow. Moreover, the Honduran coup is something of a radioactive issue with fallout that touches many on Team Clinton, including husband Bill....” (See “EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy” by Mattew Pulver, 6/8/15, Salon
[http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/]).

HERE’S HOW IT WENT DOWN IN HONDURAS

According to what was reported in the Salon article, “In the 5 a.m. darkness of June 28, 2009, more than two hundred armed, masked soldiers stormed the house of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya. Within minutes Zelaya, still in his pajamas, was thrown into a van and taken to a military base used by the U.S., where he was flown out of the country.... It was a military coup, said the UN General Assembly and the Organization of American States (OAS). The entire EU recalled its countries’ ambassadors, as did Latin American nations....”

MEANWHILE BACK IN WASHINGTON

According to Salon’s author Matthew Pulver, these were the optics at our nation’s capital: “.... Washington was dragging its feet, but even within the Obama administration a distinction was seen very early [ ] between the White House and Secretary Clinton’s State Department. Obama called Zelaya’s removal an illegal ‘coup’ the next day, while Secretary Clinton’s response was described as ‘holding off on formally branding it a coup.’ President Obama carefully avoided calling it a military coup, despite that being the international consensus, because the ‘military’ modifier would have abruptly suspended US military aid to Honduras, an integral site for the US Southern Command, but Obama called for the reinstatementof the elected president of Honduras removed from his country by the military. *** [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton was far more circumspect, suspiciously so. In an evasive press corps appearance, Secretary Clinton responded with tortured answers on the situation in Honduras and said that State was ‘withholding any formal legal determination.’ She did offer that the situation had ‘evolved into a coup,’ as if an elected president removed in his pajamas at gunpoint and exiled to another country was not the subject of a coup at the moment armed soldiers enter his home....”

ONE MONTH AFTER THE COUP, SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON WAS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE RETURN OF HONDURAN PRESIDENT ZELAYA — AND SOON CLINTON’S STATE DEPARTMENT EVEN HAD TO DENY THAT IT WAS “TAKING SIDES” AGAINST HONDURAN PRESIDENT ZELAYA

“.... Nearly a month [after the military coup], Secretary Clinton would call President Zelaya’s defiance of the coup government and return to Honduras “reckless” and damaging to ‘the broader effort to restore democratic and constitutional order in the Honduras crisis.’...”

Salon’s Pulver also noted that “.... even months later, with the increasingly violent and basic rights-denying coup government still in place, State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley would incredulously maintain, “‘We aren’t taking sides against the de facto regime versus Zelaya.’...”

PERHAPS ODDLY, SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON SIDED WITH THE RIGHT-WINGERS BOTH IN WASHINGTON AND HONDURAS

According to the Salon article, the Clinton State Department was working behind the scenes with various members of the right-wing establishment in Washington to make sure that President Zelaya would not return to power in Honduras. Furthermore, this U.S. cabal was coordinating with those behind the coup to effectively terminate the term of the elected President Zelaya, who was illegally deposed with one year left on his constitutionally mandated single term.

To make things worse, Honduras was ‘descending deeper into a human rights and security abyss,’ as the post-coup government was seen to be actually committing crimes of its own.

Professor Dana Frank, an expert in recent Honduran history at UC Santa Cruz, went so far as to make the charge that the resulting “abyss” in Honduras was in good part Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s making in the New York Times.

HILLARY CLINTON’S “HARD CHOICES” POINTS TO CONNECTION OF HILLARY AND OTHER CLINTON HANDS TO THE WINNERS IN THE HONDURAN COUP

Salon’s writer Matt Pulver quoted from Hillary Clinton’s book “Hard Choices as follows: “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere…We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of [the previously duly elected President] Zelaya moot.”

According to Pulver, “.... One of those strategic partners appears to have been Clinton family legal pitbull, Lanny Davis, deployed as an auxiliary weapon against the rightful, legal, democratically elected president of Honduras. Davis famously defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings, and he’s been on Team Clinton for decades, most recently serving as a booster for Hillary’s campaign in its early days.... Davis, along with another close Clinton associate Bennett Ratcliff, launched a Washington lobbying offensive in support of the coup government and its oligarchic backers, penning a Wall Street Journal op-ed, testifying before a Congressional committee, and undoubtedly knocking on office doors on Capitol Hill, where he enjoys bipartisan connections....”

Salon then went on at length to describe how Davis and other Clinton hands have been tied into the oligarches and other elites throughout the Americas.

THE CLINTON STAMP ON LATIN-AMERICAN POLICIES SHOWS THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON — AND IT’S NOT ANYTHING LIKE WHAT YOU SEE IN OR FROM HER CAMPAIGN

According to Salon, “.... This sort of engineering of regional politics in the service of the economic elite appears to be something of a hallmark of the Clinton camp. A case is being built that it’s the family business to cater to the global elite, despite the Clinton campaign’s salt-of-the-earth optics in Iowa and New Hampshire, which appears disingenuous in light of virtually everything else we know about Clinton. And with a growing list of Clinton associates being complicit, concerns about a President Clinton’s criteria for cabinet and agency appointments grow, as well.... Keeping wages down in places like Honduras and Haiti virtually ensure that those formerly decently paying, often unionized, jobs will never return to the U.S. Going to bat by proxy for Bechtel, a conglomerate with close ties to the GOP and the military industrial complex, doesn’t seem like the best use of the political talent of members of the Clintons’ braintrust....”

Pulver concludes with this: “.... It becomes fair to ask, ‘Who do the Clintons work for?’”

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Maybe, Marty G. will serve out his term as a NYS legislator in the age of Preet Bharara, maybe not — And maybe the silvery golden one will run for re-election to the State Senate in 2016, and maybe notIn any case, the Brooklyn GOP, especially in Southwest Brooklyn needs to think about life after Republican State Senator Martin J. Golden

The silver-haired and ruddy-faced Marty Golden is almost as old as I am — and that sure ain’t young.... How many of us can go around expecting to stay as hail ’n’ hardy as Mike Long for anywhere near as long? (Soon even the Conservatives’ll be calling him “Mike Too Long.”)

Eventually, if nothing else happens, the passing of the [old] guard becomes pretty much one thing.... I’m pretty sure State Senator Golden, who's just about 65 y/o/a doesn’t want to become the one state senator that needs to be wheeled >>>into<<< the chamber, attached to some tubes going in and others going out; any more than, he wants to be one that gets wheeled >>>out-of<<< it on a “Gurney.” Also, “As the days dwindle down to a precious few — September... November...” — Marty has to ask himself what’s important and “... what does it profit a man....”

But I haven’t come to bury Marty, much less to praise him. At any rate, the Eatons and Quagliones, the Regina-Potters and the Russell Gallos, the David Storobins and the Andy Sullivans, and the Star-bellied Sneetches and the Plain-bellied ones, with none-upon thars, all have to think about life after Marty Golden as the one and only Brooklyn Republican elected to public office. It's something that he has been for a very long time (with one exception that barely lasted more than a couple of months, or was it only a few days).

Even though Marty Golden has been a State Senator for almost all of the years beginning with “2" after the third century — that can’t go on forever. So, somebody needs a plan for what will happen next — especially in and for the Brooklyn GOP.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Amy Chozick’s most important article yet about Hillary Clinton and the Clintons’ campaign to get back into the White House appeared in the New York Times yesterdayA large part of the Democrat base vote is illegal voters of various descriptions — Nowadays, whenever a Democrat talks about voter registration or registration drives, they are probably talking about registering as many illegal voters as possible — Protecting those illegally registered voters is the aim of now attacking the GOP for — (Wait for it) — “VOTER SUPPRESSION”

NOW'S THE TIME FOR A BIG GOP PUSH BACK — ELECTIONS NEED TO BE BY-AND-FOR LEGAL VOTERS ONLY — COUNT NO VOTES BY "ILLEGALS" OF WHATEVER DESCRIPTION

It’s time for a maximum push-back by all Republicans — GOP “voter suppression” measures are a strategic necessity — They need to be universal in scope, universally applied and universally supported by rank-and-file Republicans and Republican supporters — They need to be defended in the courts, in the media and in the streets, because GOP “voter suppression” means — THE SUPPRESSION OF ILLEGAL VOTING BY ILLEGAL VOTERS

This post is the first of many that will be appearing on this blog during 2015 and 2016 on this subject. My instant post focuses on one report appearing in one very important part of the mainstream media — The New York Times. The article by Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman clearly lays out what the Hillary Clinton Campaign, various operators for the Clintons, and many in the Democrat Party are up-to, and why.

According to Chozick, Haberman and the NY Times, “Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign....” (See “Democrats Wage a National Fight Over Voter Rules” by Maggie Haberman & Amy Chozick, 6/3/15 [the article appeared in the print editions on 6/4/15], New York Times/ Politics
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/politics/democrats-voter-rights-lawsuit-hillary-clinton.html?ref=politics&_r=1]). Their coverage of the issue continued with this: “The court fights began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination. Now, Democrats are attacking a host of measures, including voter identification requirements that they consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct....”

How many BAD VOTES are the Democrats preemptively trying to protect in Wisconsin and Ohio with those law suits — hundreds -- thousands.– tens of thousands ? To put it another way, how many potentially illegal votes are the Democrats trying to “legalize” by forbidding those states from properly policing their voter roles in 2015 and 2016, and closely monitoring the conduct of their elections in 2016.

Urban voter fraud has been a hallmark of the Democrat Party for over a century, defending the right to continue that fraud as a right in court is something relatively new.

According to the Haberman and Chozick article, an attorney whose clients include the Hillary Clinton campaign, wants to get the litigation underway early enough so federal judges can be persuaded to intervene in those states where Republicans control legislatures and governor’s offices.

The GOP response is less than inspiring; Republican sources dismiss it as little more than a Democrat publicity gambit to energize minority voters in support of their candidates, of course including Hillary Clinton, who they expect to be at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2016.

Similar lawsuits were begun as early as last year. One was in North Carolina; and Democrat sources say that other potential fronts in the pre-emptive legal offensive, could soon be opened in Georgia, Nevada, and the increasingly critical presidential battleground tight outside Washington D.C. – Virginia.

Look who’s behind these lawsuits

Based on Haberman and Chozick’s reporting, the lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, and the 2014 North Carolina case, were brought by lawyers including Marc Elias, a leading Democratic lawyer on voter protection issues. Mr. Elias represents four of the party’s national campaign committees, and he is also the general counsel for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

Also according to Haberman and Chozick, Hillary Clinton and her aides have spoken favorably of the lawsuits. Even though the Hillary Clinton campaign is not a party to these lawsuits, and her aides have said Clinton's team supports them, the people directly involved in the various legal actions have refused to say who is paying for them.

Starting with a speech later today, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be making “Voter Access” a focus across the country

Candidate Clinton will address the issue of GOP voter suppression in a speech at Texas Southern University. Choosing the a historically black college in Houston, Clinton’s speech is expected to highlight voting rights as a key to a broader civil rights agenda. It is expected that she will condemn the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling striking down an important provision of the Voting Rights Law, which she will point out opened the way for many states to pass increasingly restrictive laws requiring voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls. She will also be calling upon Congress to re-enact those parts of the of the Civil Rights Law dealing with voting so as to negate that Supreme Court ruling. In addition, sources indicated that Hillary is also expected to single out the state laws in Texas and in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, which voting rights groups claim limit minority participation, the poor and younger voters. In other words, voters that would likely be voting for her and other Democrats.

According to the report by Ms. Haberman and Ms. Chozick, “... [Hillary Clinton] will also propose a nationwide early-voting standard of at least 20 days before an election, call for an increase in online voter registration and restate her position that former felons should have their voting rights restored....”

So far the tepid Republican response has looked something like this:

“I think it has been a growing trend in the last 10 years for campaigns to use litigation like this as a campaign weapon.... The claims that they keep making, that this is going to depress turnout, just keep proving to be not true, and many of these issues have already been litigated....” so said Hans von Spakovsky, a Republican election law expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, quoted in Haberman and Chozick’s piece.

Also mentioned by the Times’ team is this: "According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, there are 14 states with new voter laws in place for the first time in a national race."

Republicans need to push back on the Democrats attempts to legalize unlawful voting

The GOP needs to stand up for and emphasize that a majority of the lawful voters in the United State approve in principal the requirement that voters be properly registered to vote and that they be who they say they are. They also support laws requiring potential voters to present photo identification to vote. In most of the states with such laws, that means government-issued ID cards, passports, driver’s licenses, and some instances employee and student cards issued by recognized employers and universities.

The GOP needs to emphasize that similar requirements also must be applied as part of the registration process; and that any on-line, early or other absentee-type voters must be strictly scrutinized for compliance with both proper registration and compliance with the voter ID laws.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

“PANTSUIT ON FIRE – 57% in new poll say Hill[ary]’s a liar — “ALL DOWN HILL – Clinton’s huge plummet in poll....” — NY POST HEADLINES, 6-3-15“Hillary Clinton has a numbers problem....” — In Politico article, 6-2-15Big jump in “unfavorability” along with a drop in “favorability” is another “not good” piece of news for a maybe somewhat less “inevitable” Democratic nominee, Hillary ClintonOther news outlets jump on CCN’s and ABC’s numbers to sing Cassandra’s greatest hits to Hillary and the Clinton Campaign for President in 2016

CNN’s top polling person, Jennifer Agiesta, says that “More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race. *** While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her campaign in April....” (See “Poll: New speed bumps for Clinton” by Jennifer Agiesta, 6/2/15, CNN/ Polling Director
[http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html]).

The bad news in polling for Hillary and the rest of the Clinton folks was not limited to the results from the CNN-ORC poll.

BAD NEWS NOT JUST FROM CNN — ABC’S POLLING SHOWS THE SAME NEGATIVE TRENDS FOR CLINTON

According to a report from ABC News about in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, “.... Clinton faces challenges. She’s slipped underwater in personal favorability for the first time since her unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008. She’s deeper in the hole for honesty and trustworthiness – down 5 points in just two months and 12 points in the last year. And Americans by 17- to 24-point margins disapprove of her handling of recent questions on her use of personal e-mail while secretary of state, her handling of the Benghazi attack in Libya and fundraising by her family’s foundation. (See “Poll: Hillary Clinton Weakens on Trustworthiness While Jeb Bush Slides Into GOP Free-For-All” by Gary Langer, 6/2/15, ABC News [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-hillary-clinton-weakens-trustworthiness-jeb-bush-slides/story?id=31454068]).

The ABC blog article went on to add this really devastating comment: “[Even though Jeb] Bush has lost ground in the contest for the GOP nomination, Clinton does less well against him in a head-to-head matchup. The gap between them has closed from 12 points to three – 47-44 percent, Clinton-Bush, among registered voters, vs. 53-41 percent two months ago.... [T]he questions facing Clinton – particularly regarding Benghazi and her foundation’s fundraising – are more apt than a hypothetical Iraq do-over to be seen as legitimate issues in the 2016 campaign. Her decline vs. Bush among registered voters, from 53 percent in March to 47 percent now, is a significant one....”

FOX NEWS AND THE NEW YORK POST, AND BREITBART WERE QUICK TO TRUMPET THE NEWS OF THE DROPPING POLLS — BUT SO DID “USA TODAY” – POLITICO – The WAPO – AND MANY OTHERS

News outlets like Fox News and the New York Post jumped all over these polling results. Just take a look at the NY Posts front page and inside page headlines about the story quoted above in my sub-headlines to this post (See “Hillary’s huge plummet in new poll” by Marisa Schultz, 6/3/15, NY Post [http://nypost.com/2015/06/03/majority-of-voters-think-hillary-clinton-is-a-liar/][The same article appeared in the NY Post’s print editions un the titles mentioned in my sub-healines above]).

My favorite coverage was in a stalwart blog on the right, Breitbart News, which said this: “Support for Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is tanking, as more and more independents along with people from her own party are finding Clinton to be untrustworthy, according to both a CNN/ORC poll and Washington Post–ABC News poll.... The CNN/ORC survey finds more people view Clinton unfavorably than at any point since 2001.... ‘While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her campaign in April,’ the news network reports....” (See “POLL: HILLARY CLINTON PLUNGING WITH INDEPENDENTS IN POLLS” by Alex Swover, 6/2/15, Breitbart News
[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/02/poll-hillary-clinton-plunging-with-independents-in-polls/]).

In addition, Alex Swover, Breitbart’s reporter on the story noted that “.... Clinton’s falling support cited in the CNN/ORC poll is echoed in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.... The Washington Post reported Clinton’s ‘personal attributes continue to erode in the wake of stories abut fundraising practices at the Clinton Foundation and her use of a personal e-mail server while at the State Department.’... According to the Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton’s favorability rating is the lowest it’s been since she ran for president the first time in 2008.... ‘Today, 41 percent of Americans say she is honest and trustworthy, compared with 52 percent who say she is not – a 22-point swing in the past year,’ noted the Post.”

However there was similar coverage across the spectrum of the mainstream media, such as in USA Today (See “Polls reflect troubles for Clinton and Bush” by David Jackson, 6/2/15, USA Today [http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/06/02/polls-reflect-troubles-for-clinton-and-bush/]) — or the Washington Post ( See “Front-runner angst: Bush lead evaporates, Clinton favorability hits 7-year low” by By Dan Balz & Peyton M. Craighill, 6/2/15 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-2016-republicans-tightly-bunched-clintons-image-erodes/2015/06/01/9e9c26c6-0893-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html]) — or Politico (See “Hillary Clinton's poll numbers signal trouble ahead – Yes, it’s early, but few expected her to fall so far so fast” by Annie Karni & Gabriel Debenedetti, 6/2/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-signal-trouble-ahead-118567.html]).

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Based on early polling — Underdogs Sanders and O’Malley each might have a chance at victory in Iowa — Depends on continued impact of “Clinton Cash” and other scandalsLikely Democrat caucus goers are concerned that Benghazi, the Secretary of State’s use of the Clintons’ private email server, and “Clinton Cash” revelations will continue to loom over Mrs. Clinton — While Hillary and the Clinton Campaign have resisted addressing the scandals and repeatedly dodged questions from the mediaEven some Clinton supporters in Iowa believe caucuses will be hard fought — “We Democrats are a bit addicted to controversy and to conflict and to competition...”

A Breitbart News report indicates that “[r]oughly 66 percent of likely Democratic caucus goers say one of the scandals looming over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign could hurt her if she were to become the Democratic Party’s nominee in the 2016 general election....” (See “Iowa Poll: Underdogs Sanders and O’Malley’s Path to Victory Leads Through Clinton Cash” by Alex Swoyer, 6/1/15, Breitbart News/ Government
[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/01/iowa-poll-underdogs-sanders-and-omalleys-path-to-victory-leads-through-clinton-cash/]).

The Breitbart piece goes on to say that, “... [t]hat 66 percent number—if used effectively by just-declared former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley or Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont—could prove catastrophic for the ex-First Lady, former U.S. Senator, and the nation’s former top diplomat....” That’s according to Tony Leys reporting on a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll of 437 likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa conducted by Selzer & Company from May 25 to May 29, with a margin of error of 4.7 percent (See also “Iowa Poll shows big Clinton lead, but also some worries” by Tony Leys, 6/1/15, The Des Moines Register [http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/01/iowa-poll-democrats-hillary-clinton-controversies/28279617/]).

Even though many Democrats might not be bothered by the scandals personally, they have expressed concerns about the political effects, which could be exploited by the opposition in the general election.

Meanwhile, O’Malley and Sanders both seek to outflank Clinton on the left. In a written piece that’s gotten some other media attention, Radio Iowa noted that both Sanders and O’Malley are drew sizable crowds as they traveled in and through Iowa on Sunday and Monday, last week (See “Crowds turn out to see Clinton challengers Sanders, O’Malley in Iowa” by O. Kay Henderson, 5/31/15, Radio Iowa blog [http://www.radioiowa.com/2015/05/31/crowds-turn-out-to-see-clinton-challengers-sanders-omalley-in-iowa/]).

According to the Radio Iowa report, “[t]he two Democrats who have formally emerged to challenge Hillary Clinton for their party’s 2016 presidential nomination visited Iowa this weekend. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders attracted overflow crowds in Ames and Davenport, then Sanders capped his three-day trip with a Saturday night stop in Kensett, where more than 300 people greeted him....”

Elsewhere. “.... O’Malley delivered [a] subtle dig at the kind of events Clinton has held as he chatted with reporters in Des Moines Saturday night. O’Malley also answered 16 questions from the crowd of more than 200 people who’d crammed into his Iowa headquarters to hear his message. John Kaiser of Des Moines is retired but still active in the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and he was there to see O’Malley. Kaiser’s ‘not real happy’ with the way Clinton has handled questions about U.S. trade negotiations.... Des Moines attorney Jerry Crawford, a long-time supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, expects both O’Malley and Sanders to ‘run hard’ in Iowa — and he said Sanders already has become the “darling” of “philosophical purists” in the Democratic Party.... ‘We Democrats are a bit addicted to controversy and to conflict and to competition and so it was inevitable that this would happen,’ Crawford said during a weekend appearance on Iowa Public Television’s ‘Iowa Press’ program....”

About Me

I formerly have commented on various political blogs concerning Republican politics. Although the focus of my political commentary has been on the Brooklyn GOP and other aspects of politics in Brooklyn, I have also posted commentary about national matters.
If you wish to contact Galewyn Massey directly, please, Email to galewynmasban@gmail.com